The concept rifle was the brainchild of a certain late Master Sergeant
(forgive me for not remember the man's name, fist name was Tom, Rick Boucher
would know) of the 10th Special Forces Group at Ft. Devens (now at Ft.
Carson). AT that time, the 10th SFGA had a SOTIC (Special Operations Target
Interdiction Committee vs. Course) of their own. They conducted Level II
training for their SF operators with their own course to supplement their
Level I snipers and prior to sending shooters to the SOTIC course at Ft.
Bragg. They even had their own machine room and reloading facility. Not
anymore though with the politically correct military, special operations
included. It was deemed not career safe by a commander at the time.

The major component differences between the original M25 and the
M21 were the scope mount and the steel liner. The barrel at that time,
was the same National Match barrel used on the M-21. The scope mount was
actually developed by a couple of instructors at the Ft. Bragg based SOTIC.
It was intended to replace the mounts used to support both the ART I and
ART II scopes. The major difference being the third point of contact over
the forward reciever ring. This third point of contact was intended to
eliminate flex in the base during shooting. That was determined to be one
of the major causes of the base shooting loose. I have photos of the original
design work of that base. When one of the instructors left the committee
in the early 80s, he took the design to one Mitch Metiko who marketed the
design.

The other major design difference in the base was the cam type mounting
bolt for the side of the reciever. The mounting hole on the side is located
in different positions on different rifles over the years. This slight
variation in location induced stress in the standard base that also contributed
to zero loss and the thing coming loose under shooting. The base, as everyone
knows was intended to allow the use of the L&S M-3 Ultra scope. This
is the version prior to the public built Mark IV system. Originally the
M-1 Ultra was built first, again with input by SOTIC personnel and people
from Leupold and Stevens. The legend is that it was designed on a paper
napkin at the NCO Club on Fort Bragg. The M-3 system was made after the
M-1.

The steel liner system on the original M25 was merely an interface
designed to allow the operator to install and remove the barreled action
from the stock for maintenance and not have a zero change. The intent was
similar to the result obtained with the H&S Precision stock for the
M-24 SWS. There were no lugs on the reciever and the barreled action was
held in by the trigger guard. The liner was also intended to replace the
sorry "bisonite" bedding compound used by military armorers of the time.
That compound was not impervious to chemical cleaning compounds like today's
Devcon or Brownell's Steel Bed are.

The early and late models of the M-25 shot extremely well. The various
SOTIC cells all pushed the M-25 system as the backup to the M-24 bolt rifle.
From SOTIC's earliest days, their training was conducted with in house
built bolt action rifles using short actions obtained from the Air Force.
Instructors and members of the USAJFKSWCS weapons facility built in house
rifles using McMillan barrels (pre-Harris Gunworks), McMillan M40A1 field
stocks and their competition prone stock. Optics were all M-3 Ultras. The
M-3A was the upgraded version. The difference being that the M-3 scopes
had 1 MOA windage adjustments, while the M3A had 1/2 MOA windage adjustments.

The new scope base also allowed the use of AN/PVS-4 night vision
sights on a custom built base that interfaced with the base on both the
M-24 and the M-25 rifles. Few of these bases were made however, and did
not see field issue to the various SF groups. At the time SFOD-D used ARMS
custom made mounts to put the AN/PVS-4 on their bolt guns. The SIMRAD was
not in use at that time.

The M-25 used no bipod and shooters in the SOTIC course at Ft Bragg
used sandbags under their rifles. The Harris bipod of that era was indeed
a piece of crap and constantly fell apart. Later as the M-24 was being
considered for upgrade to a heavier caliber for special operations (.300
Win Mag or .338/.416) the M-25 was being considered for the backup gun
for the observer. Suggested modifications included a standard trigger
group vs. the match trigger (since that is a problem with all M-21 and
Match M-14s, armorer needed too much of the time). Parker Hale or Harris
Bipod (now much better).

The guys at the 10th SFGA also worked with Phil Seeberger of OPSINC,
one of the finest suppressor manufacturers in the world. They designed
a suppressor for the M-25. The hole in the gas piston was welded up and
changed (won't state the dimensions, sorry) so that the rifle functioned
correctly using the suppressor. Accuracy further improved and was easily
up their with the M-24 (better when the 24 was shooting M118 and the M25
was shooting M852, no surprise there).

Different stocks such as the M2A were mostly out of the unit models
that were made by various gun builders. I made 3 M25s using the M2A stock
and much preferred that over the standard heavy match McMillan stock. Works
great with the saddle cheekpiece. Lastly, my opinion is that the M-25 built
correctly, will flatten any SR-25 or AR-10 that is around. Gun for gun,
the M-25 design is superior, maybe outdated, but so is the bolt action
rifle. The M-25 was designed to fill an initial shortcoming in the M-21,
then to augment the sniper team using the M-24, or .50 caliber rifle. Tough
gun all around. Hope this provides some interesting reading.

Rick Boucher was there at the time also. Most of this took place
prior to my being at SOTIC, but most of the individuals were still there
when I was there. Most honorable mention, David Zavitz (late), without
a doubt the most mechanical, machine type shooter I have ever seen shoot
a rifle. He was a magician. Of course, honors to Rick Boucher, next to
Dave was the finest sniper instructor that I had the pleasure of learning
from.

Interesting Info floating on here lately. Guess that is one way
of putting it!

Fred - WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING SIZZLE CHEST?

Bravo - Contact the 82nd about the Dick Swan ARMS debacle before
you take too much info there. I spent one week on the range with the 82
trying to get their weapons zeroed. The scopes were falling off the weapon
due to the mounts breaking. 10th Group and Tom Kapp was having the same
problem after only 5 to 10 rounds. That is why the ARMS mount was never
used. We had the same problem with the mounts we put on the M21s we were
upgrading.

Bill, dc8plumber - The M25 started as a project weapon in 86 and
the scope was the Ultra M3 later to become the M3A (Still have several
M3 scopes here on SOTIC). The project started at 10th Group with MSG Amelung
then NCOIC of 10th Group SOTIC and then SFC Tom Kapp later MSG. It was
to be the observer's weapon and support weapon for urban operations. The
weapon went through a number of modifications until the whole thing was
squashed by GEN Guest. Reason was that he down played the M21. He
had just told congress that it was unfixable to get the M24 on line. To
now go back and ask to upgrade the weapon system not in his scheme of manuver.
The B&L Tactical was never used on the orignal series as the B&L
did not come out until later in the game and the Ultra series had been
bought and in use. I believe that the Navy version did have the B&L
but they started playing after the fact.

Dean - Thank you for the kind words. A couple of things to correct
though. The biggest is that the Brookfield mount was not designed
by us. Zavitz'z mount is still here and is completely different. You just
re-stated Dick Swan's claim of the scope mount being designed by us. He
added that we were getting kick backs and is the basis for the JAG and
IG investigation in 87-88. This was instigated by Swan to get his mount
used on the M25 project even though it failed completely during tests at
Devens. He claimed we failed the mount in favor of the Brookfield. Zavitz,
Kapp, and myself were tied up in investigations for a while until it became
obvious that the complaint had zero merit. I believe all this hit just
before you came to SOTIC and is why there is still some confusion on the
issue.

An additional advantage to the Brookfield is that the mount permitted
use of the iron sights set at "battlefield zero" with the scope still mounted
on the weapon.

The Brookfield liner was a major plus for durability of the weapon
system. However, while the weapon could be made to be just as accurate
as the M24 on the range it still suffered from all auto weapon problems.
Once introduced to the field environment the weapon started opening up
and the zero shifted. This was from the debris getting into the workings
of the weapon and changing how the weapon vibrated and locked up with each
cycle of the weapon. There is no known cure and while the weapon may be
fine for several shots and several outings the weapon will let Murphy screw
you at the worst possible time. We used a planning range of only 500 to
600 meters for the weapon as the backup/spotters weapon. The weapon had
a durability problem and that is why we never jumped them in the course
rather we had the students jump a 2x4 of correct length. We did this so
that a student did not fail due to a weapon going south for the final shot
after the jump.

As far as picking between the M25 and the SR or AR I would have to
go with the new SRs that are being produced and built. They are holding
zero, not jamming, and all are in love with the weapon. Up to that time
no SR25 had made it through our course.

Jen - Belated welcome! Get the M3LR, you will be happy and never
have a MAJOR problem that can't be settled by the company. The BDC is actually
only a collar that tells you when you have enough moa come ups or downs
from your zero range to hit your desired target range. There is no "cam"
as on the S&B or other "cammed" scopes. The elevation is in minutes
of angle or .25 moa is you go with the M1LR. Pesonally I think once you
get used to the 1 moa you will find it quite accurate for most shooting
requirements, it will get you to within 4 inches at 800 and most can't
even begin to shoot that close anyway.